Tis almost the season to be jolly…but only if you’re a senior council officer at East Riding council up in Yorkshire.  East Riding council wants to pay its senior officers up to £12,000 more per year, taking the money out of the taxpayer’s pockets and putting it in the bureaucrats’ wallets.  From the story in the local paper:

“Under the plans, chief executive Nigel Pearson will receive a £9,000 increase to his £153,000 salary, while other directors could see their salaries rise by £12,000 to almost £123,000.

Another director and 21 other heads of service will pocket increases of between £5,000 and £6,000”

It’s disgraceful that senior officers will receive £12,000 pay rises in an economic downturn.  This is adding insult to injury as folk in the private sector lose their jobs as recession bites in.   It also sends completely the wrong message to local taxpayers.

Fret ye not, dear reader.  The full council has to ratify the pay increase on November 19th.  So, below you’ll find the councillor contact details so you can ask them to reject the pay increase and send an empathetic message to their constituents that the council will show some restraint in its spending as we all have to nowadays.

Cllr J Abraham (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr R Allerston (Social Democrat) – 01262 679557
Cllr C Bayram (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr B Beck-Taylor (Lib Dem) – [email protected]
Cllr J Bird (Lib Dem) – [email protected]
Cllr E Burton (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr R Burton (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr C M Chadwick (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr C Chadwick (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr R Chapman MBE (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr L Cross (Labour) – [email protected]
Cllr P Davison (Lib Dem) – No Telephone or Email
Cllr D Engall (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr J Evison (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr C Fox (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr S Fraser (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr T Galbraith (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr H Gilmour (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr K Gray (Independent) – 01482 869372
Cllr M Grove (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr B Hall (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr M Hardy (Lib Dem) – [email protected]
Cllr K Harold (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr R Harrap (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr K Hemming-Taylor (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr S Horton (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr R Hudson (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr C Hunter (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr A Ibson (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr B Jeffries (Lib Dem) – [email protected]
Cllr B Jefferson (Independent) – [email protected]
Cllr R Jump (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr M Kingston (Lib Dem) – [email protected]
Cllr J Kitchen (Lib Dem) – [email protected]
Cllr W Knight (Lib Dem) – 01482 841844
Cllr S Lane (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr C Lynn (Lib Dem) – [email protected]
Cllr G Mathieson (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr C Matthews (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr K McClure (Lib Dem) – [email protected]
Cllr G Megson (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr C Mole (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr K Moore (Labour) – [email protected]
Cllr P O’Neil (Labour) – [email protected]
Cllr J Owen (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr S Parnaby (Con – Leader of the Council) – [email protected]
Cllr J Parsons (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr P Peacock (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr B Pearson (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr G Pickering (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr P Pollard (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr M Preston (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr P Robinson (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr D Rudd (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr D Sharpe (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr G Shores (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr B Skow (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr S Sloan (Lib Dem) – [email protected]
Cllr P Smith (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr R Stead (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr A Suggit (Independent) – [email protected]
Cllr F Temple (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr R Tress (Lib Dem) – [email protected]
Cllr P Turner (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr K West (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr J Whittle (Independent) – [email protected]
Cllr J Wilkinson (Con) – [email protected] 

On Friday I went up to the University of East Anglia to take part in a Question Time event hosted by the University of East Anglia Conservatives which was an open event to all students.  With a packed room – even on Halloween – the audience fired very challenging questions at us.

It gave me a chance to spell out current TPA research and campaigns in a response to a question on EU regulation.  Costing British businesses around £150 billion a year, it clearly has a damaging effect on business when we need British business at its best, to grow, employ and prosper for us all.  Below you can see the reactions to some of the government waste stories we’ve racked up here at the TPA.  There was unanimous disgust in the room when they were told about Moray Council’s ‘street football coordinator’.

The question of the night was a bolt from the blue, and a great one at that.  The issue was the FairTax, an idea in America to replace the income tax with a national sales tax.  It made for great debate and disagreements on the panel.  The main point of divergence being over whether the government should tax work, with the government automatically withdrawing tax from our pay cheques.

In all it was an interesting evening, if a late one for me on the last train home, and excellent seeing students embracing the low tax principles of the TPA.

The German Government are apparently threatening to veto an EU Commission proposal to extend member states’ rights to reduce VAT on a variety of services (yes, you really do need unanimous EU permission to cut taxes on haircuts).

The fact that we have sacrificed our right to set our own tax levels on so many services is outrageous enough, but the reason the Germans have given for their obstruction is very revealing. The German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck said:

I am very reluctant to extend the reduced VAT rates as it makes no sense in terms of harmonising tax rates in Europe

So now it’s official – as we’ve always said, EU tax harmonisation equals higher taxes all round. The idea that Britain can secure a low tax economy by handing over our tax sovereignty and then persuading everyone else that it’s a good idea is total, utter and unadulterated bunkum.

It was reported last week that North Somerset Council invested £3 million two months after it had been warned that Landsbanki was not on sound financial footing. Yes, afterwards.

You may think this is inexcusable, but NSC would like you to think again. Finance Director Phil Hall keeps saying that they were just following orders, trying to get the highest possible return for their investment. Now, we have written at length here and elsewhere that when taxpayers’ money is at stake, safety must always be top priority.

You would have thought that this would be self evident, particularly to a finance director. But as it apparently wasn’t, in order to reassure his public and no doubt try and guarantee his woefully undeserved bonus at the end of this financial year, Mr Hall has come up with a list of things he plans to do in order to Never Let This Happen Again.

The six point plan includes such beauties as upgrading the required credit rating for council investments, retain a limit of £7 million invested in any one institution and investing only in UK institutions in the coming financial year.

These all sound alarmingly like common sense to me. The above recommendations bring to mind stable doors and horses, and this is yet another example of just why we (and many people around the country) are so angry about the amount of money pocketed every year by Finance Directors of dubious quality.

Of course, whenever we question the remuneration packages received by these directors, we are told that "you have to pay the best to get the best".

If the people who invested taxpayers’ money in a financial institution, nay a country, on the verge of economic collapse are the best there is, we would frankly be better off without them. A bit of common sense and caution when it comes to allocating public money would be a nice change. And if there’s money left over? Give it back, or invest it in frontline public services – that, Mr Hall, would have been the ‘best’ option. 

The British Government has announced new plans to ensure hate preachers will be kept out of Britain. From now on it will be for the radicals to prove they are not a threat to Britain. Currently, the Government has to prove they are a threat. This announcement is a little late. To be precise, eleven years too late, however, it should be great news. The trouble is that under  European Human Rights Legislation, as incorporated into British law by the Human Rights Act 1998; these measures have little chance of being successful.

We do not have the power to deport people to countries that may torture them. Most extremists emanate from countries with lamentable human rights records. If extremists are able to make their way to Britain they can claim asylum and under existing law are entitled to do so. To put it correctly, under British law, it is not enough to prove these preachers and radicals mean us harm, if the countries from which they emanate mean them harm.

If extremists claim asylum then we will have to review their case. It takes time to review their case. Once decisions are reached, claimants can always appeal and the cost of this appeal will be met by you the UK taxpayer. Even if the claimants appeal is refused these extremists can still gain the right to remain in Britain. If the extremist brought their children and they manage to string  the case out they could be allowed to remain even if their application is rejected as their children will be deemed to be settled in Britain. It is therefore judged as wrong to move them.

These changes will not substantially reduce the cost to the British taxpayer. For that, we would need the Government to properly reform the Human Rights Act to ensure the safety of law abiding Britons comes first.